Trump Had Big Advantage on Immigration and He’s Blowing It

He could be saving 'Dreamers,' and building his wall, too.

The Wall Street Journal welcomes President Trump’s emerging deal with congressional Democrats, granting legal status and perhaps citizenship to the so-called Dreamers—young people illegally brought into the United States as children—in exchange for “massive border controls.” The Journal says, “[W]e hope Mr. Trump cuts that deal with the Democrats with few security strings attached. The benefits would be many.”

But commentator Patrick Buchanan hates the deal. “Put America and American workers first,” enjoins Buchanan. “Will any amnesty of undocumented workers do that?” They’re both right—and both wrong.

The Journal is correct in saying that the idea of legalizing the Dreamers—whose undocumented status stems from illegal entry by their parents, without any guilty action on their part—is widely supported throughout America, including among Republicans and conservatives. There is probably a greater consensus on this matter than we see on any other element of the high-voltage immigration issue. There is no point in resisting this policy concept per se, and Buchanan is wrong to ignore that.

But Buchanan is correct when he says that this deal, and Trump’s manner of negotiating it, represents a likely move toward the policy plan that stirs more civic friction and rancor than any other in the immigration debate—amnesty for the 11 million or so illegals currently residing in America. He quotes commentator Mickey Kaus, writing in the Washington Post:

Advertisement

[An amnesty] would have a knock-on effect. Under ‘chain migration’ rules established in 1965 [giving priority entry status to relatives of those already here]…new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States. [T]oday’s…dreamers would quickly become millions of newcomers who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them—the ones who in theory are at fault…There’s a reason no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor you’re a citizen.

Thus the Journal is wrong to ignore this collateral impact from the policy it applauds.

In 2016 Donald Trump shattered the Washington view that a national consensus was emerging on the immigration issue. That conventional wisdom, fully embraced by Republican professionals before 2016 (those convinced their party’s presidential nominee would be Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio), was that the party must do three things to win presidential elections: first, get something approaching 35 percent of the Hispanic vote; second, maintain its proportion of the white vote at around 60 percent; and, third, generate enough turnout among whites to maintain their proportion of the electorate at 74 percent or higher.

The idea was that the country’s demographics were shifting away from the old white majority, with ever larger voting blocs among Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. Hence, Republicans would have to cede the immigration issue, at least to a significant extent. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to stay competitive in presidential elections.

But Donald Trump captured the presidency even though he got only 28 percent of the Hispanic vote, merely a percentage point above Mitt Romney’s total four years earlier. He got only 57 percent of the white vote, two percentage points below Romney’s 2012 showing. And the white vote last year constituted only 71 percent of the electorate, compared to 72 percent in 2012.

Trump demonstrated that an attack on the country’s lax immigration policies of the past 30 years could pay off politically, given the angers, frustrations, and fears generated by the immigration issue within broad spectrums of the electorate. Thus, contrary to Washington’s conventional wisdom, it wasn’t necessary to embrace mass immigration in order to get elected president.

The big question now, of course, is what to do about the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country. The political establishment clings to the idea of some form of amnesty as part of a “comprehensive solution” that promises secure borders as a trade-off. But this has proved incendiary to millions of Americans who remember the last time this trade-off was put forward—and promptly flouted as the flow of illegal immigrants accelerated following a major amnesty program. Hence, the conventional presidential candidates in 2016 sought to finesse the issue during last year’s campaign, hoping to deal with it in a more controlled legislative environment afterward.

Trump, in his usual crude manner, destroyed that ploy. He made clear that he saw the immigration issue not just as an economic challenge (though he certainly discussed that aspect of the issue) but also as a cultural crisis having to do with the sanctity of sovereign borders and the value in preserving the traditional American heritage. Millions of Americans perked up at the experience of hearing a politician thrust himself into the immigration thicket in such a manner.

Does anyone think that Trump could have prevailed in those crucial states that previously had been considered Democratic strongholds—particularly Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—if he had displayed the namby-pamby sensibility of his opponents on the immigration issue in 2016? Not likely.

But now this president puts himself in position to essentially cede the issue back to the Democrats and his Republican opponents, who are only too happy to force the political narrative back to the concept that the issue has been settled and Trump voters will just have to accept that old deal of amnesty and hollow promises of border security.

But the issue hasn’t been settled. And amnesty remains a particularly fast-acting brand of poison for Republican politicians. Many such politicians in Congress are going to rise up in revolt at the president’s action, and they should.

But that still begs the question: What should Trump do now, or what should he have done? He should have killed outright Barack Obama’s executive action called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), giving Dreamers legal status. It was unconstitutional, a naked grab for power that rightfully belongs to Congress. He should have hammered away at the constitutional issue, which must always take precedence over favored political outcomes.

Then he should have used the leverage provided by the DACA termination to bring it back legislatively in a more palatable form, precluding by law any “chain migration” outcomes flowing from that legislative action.

Then he should have proposed a truly comprehensive immigration policy designed to rid the country of any illegals convicted of any crime at any time in the past; provide some kind of legal status (but not citizenship) to remaining illegals already in the country; reduce legal immigration to numbers more in keeping with traditional inflows (and designed to reduce the percentage of foreign born people in the country, now approaching an all-time high); alter the criteria for entry to eliminate “chain migration” and favor immigrants who clearly can make an immediate contribution to the public weal; and incorporate strong measures (including a border wall) designed to clamp down forcefully on all illegal immigration into the United States.

Trump was the only politician in America who could have proposed such a comprehensive plan and shepherded it through Congress. That’s because, based on his 2016 campaign, he was the only politician with credibility on the issue of truly protecting the U.S. border, the only one who could have spoken to cynics who believe, correctly, that the political establishment really doesn’t care all that much about protecting border sovereignty.

Now he appears on the threshold of booting that political advantage. This isn’t the behavior of a politician who knows how to negotiate, much less how to think about the day’s political challenges with any degree of depth or dexterity.

Why is it every time an immigration debate starts people feel the need to just lie about the law? Chain Migration is simply not a real issue for DACA recipients, it never has been, never will be, and raising it as an issue is simply lying.

DACA recipients IF they were granted legal status as green card holders could apply ONLY for their spouse and minor children to have residency, thats it. They cannot sponsor parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, whatever. Only their own spouse, and their minor children.

Since most DACA kids have never left the states, in part because of their illegal status the likelihood they would have a foreign born spouse is ridiculously low, and its almost guaranteed any children they have would be American born and thus citizens anyway.

The only way that DACA recipients could sponsor anyone else would to first legalize their status, then apply for and be granted citizenship. So far about 1,500 of 800,000 DACA recipients have received citizenship. So unless we are talking about limiting the rights of all citizens to sponsor their relatives it is a strait up lie.

Even if you want to restrict those a citizen can sponsor there are limits on who a citizen can sponsor. Others than a spouse and children, even a citizen can only sponsor their own parents and siblings. In a DACA recipients case their parents would most likely not be eligible for legal status since they were already here illegally (its a disqualifying condition), and the siblings of DACA recipients are also generally DACA recipients…

America is on its last leg. The economy is smoke and mirrors. 11 million more welfare cases for the overburdened and sinking middle class to absorb. Who cares at this point? Maybe it is time for revolution? Maybe it is the end times spoke about by “looney” Christians? Regardless, there is no fix for any of these issues. Just let them in and lets have more happy hour margaritas.

“Now he appears on the threshold of booting that political advantage. This isn’t the behavior of a politician who knows how to negotiate, much less how to think about the day’s political challenges with any degree of depth or dexterity.”

The disappoint meant is not his lack of depth. It’s his complete disregard for why I voted for him. I understand and empathize that being disliked is hard to bear. It was tough being berated every day. Having every move questioned, threatened with legal action every day. I get it. But he was winning nearly every battle and he seems to have cratered to his enemies and seems to be spitting in the eye of his supporters. I have no doubt that he is being told its for the greater good — nonsense.

And while I would never support any plan that included killing children in the womb. I do sympathize that the Republican party was too busy undermining and whining along with democrats when they should have been meeting with h about the future. However, he’s the Republican nominee and that matters.

I expect to be called names by those who lost the election. I am well prepared to answer te “I told you so
” crowd. They have been telling so since the primaries. I am no more inclined to attend their whines now as then. They’re still complaining. Nothing new and certainly nothing insightful.

I remain happy that the current exec won, despite our growing distance. ever embracing all of what he represented in the first pace is helpful. His gambit here with DACA and the democrats and no doubt republicans as well. Is important, because its central to a theme concerning individual responsibility and the supposed rule of law. Both ethos see to be throw under the proverbial bus for the sake of getting deal, placating the international community or those here illegally or anyone else is troubling. In this instance i give not a petunia about polls.

Because what I hear is that the poor children in the US will be thrown in prison for being the children of parents whose environments are criminal and pass said ethics on. We have structured a society that makes it tough for them to break out from such environments.

Mean while, we have spent billions and billions making sure foreigners and their children are afforded more than their fair share at the expense of our citizens.

I am supposed to sign onto that – not on a bet. I don’t care how well behaved they are. I care not that the have been good l’est they be tossed out. I don’t care that they countries near enough to pressure those in power. I don’t care about the long history between latinos from elsewhere and the dominant society —

Before I get wound up about supporting illegal immigrants, I am going to remain wound up about assessing our citizens in second place to those same. I am happy to know that my own ethics are not built on whats popular or being liked.

I am not going to bow out because the people I voted for to support the US first in all things can’t tow the line they sad they would tow.

Kurt–Actually, depending on how long ago it was transferred, they might. And you might not be able to be gone after either, depending on the statute of limitations of the state you are in.

I suggest you look up the term “bonafide purchaser.” There’s an area of law which deals with what happens when a thief (A) sells a piece of stolen property to someone else (B) who doesn’t know that it’s stolen.

Immigration restrictions are like prohibition in that they cause more harm than good. They are unlike prohibition in the sense that prohibition was trying to stop a bad thing (alcoholism) and immigration restrictions are trying to stop a good thing (legal immigration).

Trump was the only politician in America who could have proposed such a comprehensive plan and shepherded it through Congress.

This is transparently false. By all accounts, Trump isn’t particularly bright or interested the specifics of policy. He doesn’t have it in him to devise an immigration policies with lots of tradeoffs that could provide some kind of negotiated, comprehensive settlement.

If you’ve ever met an old man who spends a lot of time watching Fox News, he’d say stuff like, “what we need is a darn wall to keep those illegals out! I mean, maybe those kids, like the one of works at my store who came here at a 5 year old can stay– he’s a good kid and works hard. But we’ve gotta build that wall and put an end to this!”

Trump is that old man. I have no idea why you’re expecting coherent policy in line with your policy preferences. Policy is the domain of government officials who have spent years thinking about issues and trying to resolve difficult complex consequences and tradeoffs

“Trump, in his usual crude manner, destroyed that ploy. He made clear that he saw the immigration issue not just as an economic challenge (though he certainly discussed that aspect of the issue) but also as a cultural crisis having to do with the sanctity of sovereign borders and the value in preserving the traditional American heritage. Millions of Americans perked up at the experience of hearing a politician thrust himself into the immigration thicket in such a manner.”

The problem is, most Americans don’t see it as a cultural crisis. At best, they see it as a rule-of-law crisis, but a large percentage of Americans consider nationhood an outdated concept.

I think Trump’s handling this the right way. Robert Merry overestimates the amount of political capital he currently has. The decision on DACA needs to reflect the will of the American people and I think what he’s doing is just that. If DACA really is righteous, its proponents will find a way to legalize it through Congress. If not, the program will die. Simple as that.

The other immigration issue is the H1B Visa/Greencard issue. I wish I wasn’t the only one who still is concerned about it.

That’s because I have a degree in a STEM discipline with a Master’s degree in the same STEM discipline that was earned using taxpayer-backed student loans.

Had I known about the H1B, I probably wouldn’t have taken a loan. Why would I allow the government to bring in competition against me as I pay the principal and interest on a Student Loan?

Lets do away with taxpayer subsidized student loans for citizens altogether, but let’s not have this genuflection to lobbyists that make the lives of Citizens who are trying to earn a living difficult in the very least.

If any loan holder in STEM doesn’t have a job, then their loans should be marked paid in full if any H1B visas or green cards are given in preference. Get rid of student loans completely, but for already on the hook fair is fair. Eliminate H1B or forgive the Student loans.

yep, just as it was (still is) possible to ‘repeal and replace ACA with something better’. something like a single payer system (think education – there are private universities and there are public universities, which are funded by both private and public sources). the past 2 weeks fascinate me as a student of History. I have long maintained, and continue to believe the 45th POTUS just doesn’t have the chop to “faithfully execute the office of POTUS”. he was embraced at arms length by the establishment, who view him as something of a Trojan Horse. and yet, once inside the perimeter, the troops (led by the McConnell-Ryan industrial complex) do not seem to have a “battle plan” for (re)taking the castle. were the stakes not so high, it would rival the scene in Monte Python and the Holly Grail, McConnell and Ryan screaming “run away…” as the Trojan Rabbit is launched in their (French accent), “general direction…”. I have been as critical of 45 as any, but it is possible he is growing into the role (compelled by his narcissism, nor not), and now seeks to “govern” or lead by more traditional (bipartisan) means. again, the “motive” really doesn’t matter. perhaps he doesn’t really care about Dreamers, or Walls, or unemployed rust belt Americans, anymore than he cares about opioids, Confederate statues, or climate change. that is to say, politics is nothing, if not ironic. the anti-establishment/outsider (and ‘dealmaker/”successful businessman”) needs to “make deals with establishment insiders”) in order to fulfill his “promises” to drain the swamp/take on the establishment.

I’m not liking anything about DACA or any form of Amnesty Period. Trump promised – if he is that dumb to break his promise to his base, he deserves whatever comes his way! I for one will never support the so called kids of illegals getting anything other than a one way ticket back to where they came from at taxpayer expense. It’s time overdue to eliminate this problem if we ever intend to even consider Making America Great Again!

I guess my definition of an “American” differs from most people on the “right.” A 20-yr-old who has lived here a whole lifetime, educated here, works here with friends and family and wants to stay b/c this is his home and what he loves…call me any name you want, but that to me is an American.

and by the way, Kurt’s analogy is a good one: all the money made illegally during times like Prohibition eventually got whitewashed and made families like the Kennedys into dynasties. So yeah, if the money or crime is old enough it’s no longer regarded with any import.

“I guess my definition of an “American” differs from most people on the “right.” A 20-yr-old who has lived here a whole lifetime, educated here, works here with friends and family and wants to stay b/c this is his home and what he loves…call me any name you want, but that to me is an American.”

uhh excuse me,

old enough to ave applied for citizenship and hasn’t. That’s not love that’s theft.

For the Republican Party to survive, morally, they have to convince themselves and others that a vote for Trump was a vote “against Hillary,” thus allowing themselves to disavow Trump and most of his beliefs outside of the tax cuts. If Trump goes through with the mass deportations of people who came here as children, the voters who supported Trump are going to be held to moral account by their neighbors and friends and family for the consequences. And that’s something they don’t want to have to answer for, so DACA will likely remain.

Your prescription for “What Trump should do” makes a lot of sense.
What Will Trump do? Something that involves a lot less work- make up stuff on the fly without noticeable efforts at planning, and change his position whenever it’s fun to do so.

Trump is blowing it? The problem is that there are conservatives out there, but not enough in Congress. No, I would say the RINOs have blown it and will continue to blow it. Why? Because they are beholden to donors that want cheap labor. Your blog can sound conservative, but are you really? Trump is one of the very few willing to act that way.